Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrator recall page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Previous discussions

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – index of previous unsuccessful proposals
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review – led to creation of this process
- Phase I#Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs
- Phase II/Administrator recall
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review § Administrator recall, phase II – discussion of the closes above and whether to host a third RFC

Re-request for adminship

What is a "Re-request for adminship", is an entire new process needed for this - or is it just going to use the existing RFA mechanisms, along with all RFA rules (including future rules), etc (with the only difference being the closing criteria and closing option of 'desysop')? Would an Wikipedia:Administrator elections suffice? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as per the initial proposal, A RRFA will be identical to any RFA, but with lower thresholds. As per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall § Reconfirmation by admin elections, passing an administrator election is a suitable method to respond to a successful recall petition. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this page should spell that out. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the page is still under construction and that's good feedback. (The second point regarding admin elections is currently mentioned.) isaacl (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think that either a) we do not use the acronym "RRFA" if the process is the same as an RFA (but with lower thresholds) to avoid confusion (as the process is the same) or b) (preferred), we recognize that an RRFA is similar to an RFA, but not identical to an RFA (as there may be a desire to link to the recall petition or modify the nominations/required questions to better fit the circumstance of a referenda RFA). - Enos733 (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard question 1 doesn't really make sense for a re-RFA and question 3 is rather oddly worded in the context (a successful recall petition can't happen without there being some sort of conflict) Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't legal depositions; the administrator can answer in the spirit of the question with appropriate modifications, as has been done in the past when admins have voluntarily undergone a reconfirmation request for adminship (why do I want to continue to be an administrator?). isaacl (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q1 can easily be repurposed from "what do you plan to do" to "what do you do", and Q3 will also be easy to answer at an RRFA :-) Q3 would be an opportunity (besides the nom statement) to respond to the petition concerns, so I actually think it fits quite nicely. Levivich (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal preference is to avoid jargon and not use an abbreviation at all. Personally I think it's within the discretion of implementation to make some small tweaks to the RfA template, but I don't think there can be too much deviation, without getting beyond the scope of the consensus so far. I still don't feel that it's necessary to link to the recall petition in a specific spot. Editors are going to do it in the discussion or their viewpoint statements if they feel it is warranted. isaacl (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A story

Once upon a time, there was a Wikipedia where two admins got into a WP:WHEELWAR. One of the admins had a reputation for WP:RECKLESS, and he had recently survived a recall petition. The other one had never caused any particular concerns before. The first admin made a bold decision without community support. He refused to self-revert, so the other admin reverted his bold change. While the community was still discussing the situation, the first admin re-reverted to his preferred state.

From there, everything got worse.

When the dust settled a few days later, the community realized: They couldn't de-sysop the admin who started the wheel war for another six months, because the community de-sysopping procedure specified an immunity period. Every time they had a discussion about whether to desysop an admin, and then decided not to, they were effectively granting immunity from prosecution for the stated time period. As a result, the admins who cause problems the most frequently were paradoxically the ones most likely to be protected by the desysopping policy.

This seems like a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHEELWAR would be addressed by arbcom, not recall. Levivich (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration can be filed at any time, and a pattern of poor behaviour will make it more likely that a request will be accepted. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So two bites at the apple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the point of this thread to reargue the entire recall proposal from Phase I of the RFC, or to reargue just the 6-month waiting period proposal from Phase II? Levivich (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely practical matter, if you want this to get adopted, then you're going to have to be ready to address the obvious objections.

For example: Any set delay means temporary immunity. Maybe this is the right balance, and maybe it's not, but we should admit that it does have an obvious downside.

For example: You say that WHEELWAR is ArbCom's job, but this proposal doesn't say that. Maybe it should mention it? Or maybe WHEELWAR should actually be something that the community can address directly, especially if it's not absolutely clear-cut that it's a True™ WHEELWAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the tag fool you, this is not a proposal, it's documenting the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall. Levivich (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, do not be fooled into thinking that this page is policy that has already gotten consensus from the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you think we need to have a confirmatory up-and-down vote on the outcome of Phase II, but even if we do have one, it still won't be a proposal. We can't just propose whatever we want and put that to an up-or-down vote, we have to respect the consensus that was found in Phase II. So there is no point in trying to workshop details of how the system should work, since that was already done in Phase II. It's kind of funny because WAID said "two bites of the apple" and here we're talking about three, or maybe even four, bites at the Admin recall proposal apple. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we stipulated that every sentence on this page had already been individually and overwhelmingly approved by the largest group of editors ever, that would not prevent us from making changes later. It's perfectly normal for something to get adopted and later adjusted or clarified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The key word there is "later", as in after it's implemented, not before. Levivich (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by design, a community-initiated recall process does not supersede the current arbitration policy that gives the committee the authority to remove administrative privileges. The discussion about having a respite between petitions covered your story. If there weren't an option to file an arbitration request, then the tradeoffs for having a respite period would have been different and perhaps a different consensus viewpoint would have been reached. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see this process as more suited to tackling long-term admin conduct or loss of trust issues, whereas ArbCom is still better placed to take immediate action in response to serious misconduct. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This. I thought OP was referring to a real event, until I realized, there was never a general community recall procedure in the past of any sort. So would the opposition to creating a community recall procedure really be the hypothetical prospect that (upon failure) it grants temporary protection from the community recall procedure? (I imagine there will be plenty who would not support such a procedure without some kind of mandatory cooldown period, just as with AfD and everything else here.) SamuelRiv (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that there was never a general community recall procedure...at this Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who closes the petitions?

Bureaucrats? Admins? Any editor? Is involvement an issue, given how cut-and-dry the result should be? – Joe (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bot could do it. Petitions don't have to be closed because there is no finding of consensus: either they have 25 signatures in 30 days or they don't. A bot could determine that. And bots are never involved :-) Levivich (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be opposed to a bot since A) I don't expect there to be that many petitions and B) If signatory #25 is a sock, a bot auto-closing it make it so that no-one bothers to look at the account and see if it's suspicious. A human close, even if it's a NAC, ensures someone's looked at the votes, even if superficially. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I preusmed it would be a crat, since someone needs to make sure all the signatures are valid. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think involvement is an issue since it's purely a vote by signature. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have to be a crat to make sure signatures are valid; per Phase II, the clerking of petitions (including striking/removing invalid votes) is the same as the clerking of RFAs (which doesn't require crats). Levivich (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initiating RRFAs

@Voorts: In your close of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Administrator_recall#Desysop_after_Recall_petition you wrote that both options A and E found consensus. But as far as I can see, these are contradictory. Option E says that a bureaucrat will open the RRFA within thirty days (respecting requests for a delay from the admin). Option A says that if the admin does not open the request within thirty days, they'll be desysopped – but given option E, when would that ever happen? Also, what if the admin doesn't want to make an RRFA (i.e. resigns their adminship), does the crat still have to open one?

And Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Administrator_recall#Reconfirmation_by_admin_elections introduces another ambiguity. If the admin can stand in an election instead making an RRFA, what happens if the next election is not scheduled within the next thirty days? Can they retain their tools while they wait? – Joe (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first one, I don't think there's a contradiction. Option E was presented as being in addition to another option and several editors supported both. My reading is that if an admin requests a 30 day extension, then they have 30 days. If not, a crat starts the RRFA.

My understanding of the election part is that the election needs to be in the 30 day period, so the sequence is request 30 day extension, stand for election during that period if there is one, otherwise start an RRFA. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But option A says that the admin will be desysopped after thirty days. In what circumstance would that happen? – Joe (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the admin doesn't open an RRFA after receiving an extension, a crat can desysop in their discretion at the end of the extension. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But Option E says it's the crat that opens the RRFA (delayed or not), not the admin. See where I'm coming from? – Joe (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~A crat won't start the RFA~~ An RFA won't start unless the admin wants to run again. The admin can choose to take the desysop instead (and can run an RFA after the 30/60 days under the usual rules). Levivich (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me but I'm wondering if it's already been discussed and agreed somewhere? It's not currently covered on this page. – Joe (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't love the "start the RRFA" being defaulted to 'crats - preferably the admin would do it so they can make an opening statement and acknowledge acceptance. If crat's open it will just say something like "per recall petition". — xaosflux ^Talk 17:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Joe and xaos make a good point. All of the options except E in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall#Desysop after Recall petition explicitly said it's the admin who starts the RFA: If an admin does not start an RRFA within.... There is some contradiction there, because Option E is A bureaucrat should open an RRFA immediately after a successful Recall petition by default, but the admin may instead request a delay. I still think logically speaking it can't be anyone other than the admin who decides whether or not to initiate the RFA. You can't put someone up for RFA without their consent. Voorts is the closer of that section (and I'm involved of course), but my interpretation of E is that it's more about the delay issue than it is about who starts the RFA. It just doesn't make sense for a crat to open up an RFA for someone else--it's gotta be the candidate who makes that call of whether or not to run again. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I discussed in another location, I think the responsibility is shared with the bureaucrats and the administrator in question. The bureaucrats are co-ordinating with the admin to determine what approach they want to follow within 30 days: start a re-request with appropriate statements in place, be a candidate in an administrator election within an appropriate time frame, or not seek to retain administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the discretion will allow for some flexibility around the 30 day mark, e.g. an admin indicating they want to run in an election starting in 33 days time. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats are collaborative editors just like anyone else. They'll work out the best approach. (Note the approved proposal gave bureaucrats the discretion to remove administrative privileges, rather than mandating it on a fixed schedule.) isaacl (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason it states the 'crat may desysop them, not that a 'crat should desysop them. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and boldly reworded the section to reflect the understanding here, because the close as written doesn't make sense. – Joe (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When is this policy?

For the sake of argument, let's say no other RfC is needed. At what point do we decide, this page is more or less finalized (obviously CCC and minor tweaks will come up) and any EC editor may start a petition? Is it based on edits to this page per day/week, a barely publicized discussion here or on the previous RFCs' talk, or something else? Sincerely, Dilettante 20:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would give more time for the discussion at the RFC talk page to continue, people may yet want to comment there. But I expect that nobody who is in favor of the outcome of Phase II will start a ratification RFC, and it's going to be up to someone who disagrees with the outcome of Phase II to start a ratification RFC (and vote against it). At some point, either someone will do that, and then it'll become policy if it's ratified; or if no one does that, it'll become policy by default. At some point either someone proposes the ratification, or discussion peters out and it becomes clear we won't have the ratification. I'm not sure how long we wait but we'll know it when we see it. I think the actual point at which this becomes policy is whenever it's added to WP:ADMIN. Levivich (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why someone who is in favor of what is outlined here would not want to start such an RfC, unless they are convinced that the community will reject it. WP:PROPOSAL is how something becomes a proposal. It doesn't include becoming a policy by default. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA2024 complied with WP:PROPOSAL. Levivich (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I find it troubling to think that editors who support this draft policy would refrain from putting it up for an RfC, on the grounds that they would prefer an opponent to do so. An RfC created by someone who opposes the proposal is one that would be criticized by supporters as being malformed, as being prejudicial against approval. Supporters should make the proposal, because they are best able to make the case for it. I would also be troubled by a situation in which this page just sits for a while, and then someone starts a recall petition. It would end up being contentious on procedural grounds, might well end up boomeranging, and would likely be unfair to the admin who was subjected to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I opened this section because I intended to start an RFC and was wondering what the alternative is. Levivich's implicit SILENCE argument isn't really enough to convince me not to try to gain proper consensus on such a sweeping change. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I want this to succeed, because a lot of editors have contributed to getting it to this point. But trying to get it accepted "by default" is going to make it less likely to succeed, not more. – Joe (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dilettante. I appreciate that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been discussing with @Theleekycauldron how to best structure the next RFC. It's not clear to me, and neither do I have the time to start another RFC at this point. I assume there may be some appetite for further "Open discussion" just before going to yes/no, but I suspect just the latter might be simpler. Soni (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should just be a barebones Support/Oppose/Discussion format taking place on its own page. IMO people should be given the option to support it becoming a full policy or for just a six-month trial, but I'm aware the idea of a trial hasn't really been discussed WRT recall. Out of curiosity, are the discussions on-wiki? Sincerely, Dilettante 19:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, mainly out of the convenience of real time replying. For Phase II, I attempted to ask each subquestion onwiki, and it only slowed everything down and still let things have strife. So I preferred simplifying it further, focus things on the process and the main question.

I think if people want a trial, they can state so in their Support/Oppose/etc. But it seems prudent to choose the format of most simplification after how complicated Phase II was, so I really prefer just the Support and Oppose as major categories Soni (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can see the kinds of opposition one should anticipate at WP:CDARFC. I strongly recommend giving thought to how to respond to similar concerns about this new proposal, before starting the RfC. It might be a good idea to prepare some sort of information page, explaining why editors should support it. It's really important to make the strongest case possible. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for Wikipedia:Admin reconfirmation

Given that admin reconfirmation is its own concept, I suggest that at some point Wikipedia:Admin reconfirmation should be redirected to Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations (and that its talk page be redirected accordingly). (It could be changed now if any existing links were first re-directed to the current page name.) Alternatively it could point to one of the past proposals for scheduled admin reconfirmation, but as there isn't any one single page covering that category of proposals, I think pointing to the list of past admin reconfirmations is simplest. isaacl (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Wikipedia:Admin reconfirmation as proposed, after updating the links to it to point to the administrator recall page (except for the links on this talk page and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review). isaacl (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EC vote suffrage only as well?

Currently, RfA has the EC restrictions for voting. Would it be applicable here as well? – robertsky (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As mentioned on the page, the same request for adminship process is used for re-requests, just with lower thresholds for passing. isaacl (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section on other methods of resolution?

WP:ADMIN has a short section that reads In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgment or conduct issues), or if dialog fails, then the following steps are available: Similarly, ANI and ARBREQ both suggest other measures to be taken first.

Would it make sense to add a section or even just a sentence suggesting one should raise their concerns with the admin on their talk page and/or try DR first? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, I think it's a good idea to point readers to other steps that should be tried first. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very good idea, yes. – Joe (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dilettante actually added: In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. Administrator recall is intended for when the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgment or conduct issues), or if dialog fails. I think that is not a good idea, it's adding conditions that weren't part of 16c. The reasons for voting should be up to the voter Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, edited. Levivich (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

displayed shortcuts

I appreciate that are those who really like shortcuts with a small number of letters. Personally, though, I don't find ADRC or ADREC very meaningful unless I already know their destination (they sound like they're about advertising). I'd rather just publicize something like WP:Admin recall in the shortcut box and not a host of cryptic letters that will invariably become more jargon unwelcoming to the uninitiated. I know there are those who feel that part of joining a community is learning its jargon. I just think there is already enough jargon to serve that purpose that we don't need to introduce ones that look like telegram abbreviations. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. You can remove them from the shortcut box, but my view is that we should have at least one for the whole page and RRfA should go to the subsection. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that for now, WP:Admin recall doesn't point to this page, so until that is moved and any links to it fixed up, it's probably better to wait before turning it into a redirect. I've changed the redirect for WP:RRfA. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the older WP:Admin recall page to a new name and fixed up most of the links (I left a few that referred to the general concept, rather than the specific proposal), and changed it so now Wikipedia:Admin recall redirects to Wikipedia:Administrator recall. isaacl (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petition signatures

I am not sure if this out to be spelled out, but I presume an editor can remove a signature on a petition prior to the petition closing. The reason I ask is that the draft says Any signature or comment may be struck based on the same criteria used during requests for adminship. The link goes to WP:MONITOR, which talks about a monitor striking votes, not an editor striking their signature. - Enos733 (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly can remove their signature. I don't think it's necessary to include that one can strike their comments, given that's an accepted part of any open discussion and that WP:RFA doesn't state that either. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New section at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

After we finish with drafting this, should this policy be added as a new section at WP:Requests for adminship as a separate section, similar to "About RFA" and "About RFB" and should a Re-request for adminship be a distinct category from "Current nominations for adminship?" - Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not until there is a clear consensus to actually use this process, I think. See #When is this policy?, above. – Joe (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Whadya know, an editor (not me) has already started an RfC on adopting this proposal, even though no notice was placed here. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Administrator Recall. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make or start a re-request for adminship

I changed the language to An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must start a re-request for adminship. It has been changed to must make a re-request for adminship. I think the question here is whether a re-request for adminship is a process that needs to be started or whether it is a permission to be asked for.

My preference is for the word start since the close alludes to a process starting within 30-days and that we recognize that an administrator must start the discussion. I do recognize that the individual editors request additional permissions, but in the case of administrator privileges, the request begins a community discussion. I also think that "make" may add some confusion compared to "start" with regard to timing. - Enos733 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think both are valid ways to refer to the process: you start the (re-)request process, and you make a (re-)request for additional privileges. I agree that in the "Re-request for adminship" section, it's helpful to describe the process as starting within 30 days. So perhaps the wording could be something like "An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must start the re-request for adminship (RRfA) process within thirty days of the close of a successful recall petition." isaacl (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, prefer the “start” wording. They are already an admin at that point, so they’re not really making a request. Toadspike [Talk] 07:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they are. That's what the R in RfA starts for. If I request an extension to my deadline, it doesn't stop being a request because it's my tenth. – Joe (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no 'start' is just ungrammatical. In English you make a request. You'd never hear somebody say "start a request"; that's just bureaucratese. If it's to be 'start' then as Isaac says the object should be 'process', not 'request'. But I think that's just making the wording more complicated for no real benefit; 'make' also clearly refers to the start of the process. – Joe (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, "a re-request for adminship" is a process, so you can "start a re-request for adminship". "Make" gives me the feeling that they as soon as they make a request it's done, while "start" conveys that they're beginning a week-long process that they should be constantly engaged with. (Basically the timing point brought up by Enos.) My earlier comment, in hindsight, makes no sense. Toadspike [Talk] 18:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archives

Should the currently existing archives for this talk page be moved to be subpages of Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall (2006 proposal)? Moving the archives would probably make them easier to follow for someone looking into the discussions of the 2006 proposals (there were at least a couple for which the related discussion was archived onto those pages). isaacl (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The archives definitely should be moved without leaving a redirect. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]